Oh, the antics of the creationist!
...
Looking forward to that interview with Miller in which he does a 180 on his experiments."
"In an interview in 1996, Miller states:
"In 1951, unaware of Oparin's work, Harold Urey came to the same conclusion about the reducing atmosphere. He knew enough chemistry and biology to figure that you might get the building blocks of life under these conditions...."
Weird - I have a hard time believing that this fellow would, within a few years (before dying 9 years later), have an about-face and claim his experiments failed.
Also note that it is clear that the goal was not to create life. I suspect your YEC sources are just the usual charlatans and propagandists I have concluded nearly all of them are. But I am sure you will be able to produce this interview and will be from a legitimate source."
"Define "information" in a biologically relevant way." (he never did)
How could these molecules have formed on earth, if the atmosphere for the experiment wasn´t the atmosphere of early earth ? Miller himself said his mix of gasses was incorrect.
Ah - from that mysterious "recent interview" no doubt...
I guess you just ignore that the same basic experiments have been run with other mixtures, etc. and the results have been pretty similar.
Then of course we have the abiotic synthesis of amino acids (and also purines and pyrimidines) rendering it all pretty much moot...
So, what is the correlation to abiogenesis in nature ? Certainly chemical reactions are natural, yet these in this experiment had to have a very specific atmosphere, controlled and maintained, specially purified material, in an overall setting that is now considered wrong.
I asked you before - how shall experiments be conducted such that you, with no scientific experience, would accept them?
Is it only abiogenesis experiments you reject, or all experiments?
Did the experiment use the UV light that would have been present on the early earth ? Since purified water was used, what would have been present in the water on early earth ? How could those potential and likely materials effect the process ? Miller Urey used some oxygen. Apparently an amount considered today to be too low for the early earth. Oxygen is the master oxidizer, how would more of it effect the documented process ?
Miller Urey was an interesting experiment, apparently meeting the goals of its designers.
However, it is long outdated as representing the atmosphere of early earth, unless that has changed, again.
It represents exactly what it is, nothing more. It doesn´t represent, apparently, what would have been the atmosphere and conditions on early earth accurately.
What it created is interesting, yet even if there was perfect consensus on the experiments environment being correct, exactly how does what was produced fit into abiogenisis ? They are non living materials required for life. They exist in nature, like in meteorites.
I see little correlation to abiogenesis, which is a process, not a thing, like an amino acid.
If I put a pile of 15,000 bricks on a lot, could I call it the creation of a house ? Could I say the brick is representative of the house building process ?
Blah blah blah....
Creationists are like the U.S. military - always preparing for the previous war.
Do you ever update your archived retorts?
For crying out loud, even Wikipedia demolishes your naive complaints:
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
"After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] More recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, but prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions.[8]
...
Other experiments
This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, the molecules of which were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.[15] Also, many amino acids are formed from HCN and ammonia under these conditions.[16] Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[17]
There also had been similar electric discharge experiments related to the origin of life contemporaneous with Miller–Urey. An article in The New York Times (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at The Ohio State University, before the Miller Science paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis." The article describes other early earth experiments being done by MacNevin. It is not clear if he ever published any of these results in the primary scientific literature.[18]
K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to Science on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 10, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953.[19] Wilde used voltages up to only 600 V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water in a flow system. He observed only small amounts of carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide, and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds. Other researchers were studying UV-photolysis of water vapor with carbon monoxide. They have found that various alcohols, aldehydes and organic acids were synthesized in reaction mixture.[20]
More recent experiments by chemists Jeffrey Bada, one of Miller's graduate students, and Jim Cleaves at Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California, San Diego were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[21]
...
Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere.[22] Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear";[23] however, in nature, L amino acids dominate. Later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.[24]
Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been made in variants of the Miller experiment.[8][25]
...
The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[26] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[27]
...
In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than Miller had. They found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules, which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules form peptides.[36][37]
...
At least update your archived retorts.
Knock off the name calling, now. Next time your butt gets reported.
Name calling?
Here we go - quit the false accusations, next time I report your butt.
Stop embellishing, repeating long-dead 'arguments', conflating disparate concepts, strawmanning, making false claims, etc., and the plain truth may not be so unsavory.
If you don´t have the class to avoid this childish stuff, get it.
Childish - you mean like embellishing claims and then getting all bent out of shape when you are called on it?
